High-speed rail's competing visions

As roads become more crowded each year, transportation planners have been looking for a game-changer that can reduce congestion and efficiently move millions of people.

Enter rail — a centuries-old mode that may be a shining savior to those hoping to push the United States into a new way of getting people around at high speeds. But it won’t work everywhere — a lot depends on simple geography.

Story Continued Below

And lawmakers are torn between how to use limited funds: along the densely packed East Coast, which has a history of commuter rail, or out West, where California has ponied up billions of dollars to build a high-speed system, much of it from scratch.

Amtrak’s Acela service from Boston to Washington runs the fastest trains in the country, maxing out at 150 mph and increasing soon to 160 mph. The 12-year-old service has gobbled up airlines’ market share and allows the railroad to make an operating profit on the line that can be reinvested in the system, which needs more than $100 billion to reach speeds envisioned at 220 mph.

Three thousand miles away, California is inching ever closer to its high-speed rail vision, having formally approved the initial Central Valley route and scheduling a May 17 meeting with design-build teams. If constructed, California’s system will exceed 200 mph and, for many Americans, be the first example of “true” high-speed rail touted by China, Japan and Europe.

The state is using $3.3 billion in federal funds with $2.7 billion in state funding to construct the Merced-Fresno route, with a completion deadline of 2017. The project could break ground as early as this year — provided state Republicans don’t overturn funding and that an impending investigation by House Oversight and Government Operations Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) into use of the federal funds doesn’t raise red flags. Clouding the debate: Many think the best starting point for 200-mph rail speeds is the Northeast Corridor rather than a state known for its driving culture.

Dan Richard, the newly appointed chairman of the California High-Speed Rail Authority, recognizes the challenge. A new business plan shaved $30 billion off an eye-popping $98 billion price tag for the rail project and embraced integrating high-speed trains into existing rail services.

“A big part of high-speed rail’s problem is that it’s been viewed as this stand-alone, insular — frankly, arrogant — organization that’s singularly focused on fast trains. Wrong starting point. Right starting point: What do we do to meet the mobility needs?” Richard said.

The pivot hasn’t convinced opponents. Republican state Sen. Doug LaMalfa, who is running for Congress, said the new “blended” approach won’t deliver the service Californians voted for. He also cites the original $33 billion estimate for the system as a problem the new $68 billion price tag doesn’t solve. He’s trying to get a referendum on state funding onto the November ballot, either through signature-gathering or a bill in the state Legislature.